I got this in an email and thought I'd put it here for Barry O supporters to respond:
!If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have 3 years and 2 months to come up with an answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
648 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 648 of 648As with your political conversion, your theological transformation doesn't seem convincing.
My life story is what it is. Sorry if you don't approve.
If there is a clear emphasis on poverty in what is probably the earliest Gospel, and the Gospel that focuses LEAST on Christ's public sermons and private conversations, then you would have made your case.
? You're suggesting a Christian - a follower of Jesus Christ and Christ's teachings - look at the gospel that focuses LEAST on your savior's sermons and private conversations to try to reach a conclusion about what Jesus taught?
I'm not clear on your point about Mark. Why would we choose the one that focuses least on Jesus' actual teachings, since that is exactly what I'm talking about?
Dan, there are plenty of teachings in Mark's gospel, just not a lengthy public sermon like the one in Matthew 5-7 or a lengthy private discourses like we see in John 14-16.
It's not as if Christ was mute in Mark's narrative. Look at a red-letter Bible and you'll see that, except for (arguably) the last chapter, each of Mark's 16 chapters have Jesus speaking, often at length.
And what Mark recorded included teachings, including nine parables by my count, primarily in Mark 4, 12, and 13.
"You're suggesting a Christian - a follower of Jesus Christ and Christ's teachings - look at the gospel that focuses LEAST on your savior's sermons and private conversations to try to reach a conclusion about what Jesus taught?"
That's exactly right, because if your priorities are right in emphasizing Christ's teachings regarding poverty rather than His teachings regarding His death and resurrection, that emphasis ought to justifiable EVEN in Mark's gospel.
After all, "gospel" isn't just a genre that Mark may well have invented: it's THE GOOD NEWS ITSELF, which Mark claimed to record.
Indeed, Mark's focus wasn't on Christ's teachings, but there are plenty of teachings recorded in his work: if EVEN those teachings emphasize poverty, then your position is much more inarguable.
On the other hand, if Mark's gospel records a heavier emphasis on Christ's teaching about His own death than about meeting the needs of the poor, maybe your priorities aren't right after all.
Maybe your emphasis should be on what Christ has done on the cross, rather than peace-making and simple living and helping the poor and all the other things that we are supposed to do in obedience to Him.
After all, Dan, at least one of the four canonical gospels doesn't focus heavily on Christ's teachings, but all of them focus on His suffering, death, and resurrection.
(Likewise, the Supper that He Himself instituted doesn't commemorate His teachings; it commemorates His death -- His broken body and His shed blood.)
That's a pretty good indication that the "meat" of the Gospel isn't Christ's commands -- to love God and love your neighbor, or any other command that falls under either heading -- but Christ's death and resurrection.
That's exactly right, because if your priorities are right in emphasizing Christ's teachings regarding poverty rather than His teachings regarding His death and resurrection, that emphasis ought to justifiable EVEN in Mark's gospel.
This is why one strong orthodox criteria for interpreting scripture is to interpret the individual passage through the whole and through Jesus' specific teachings. I would not advocate taking Mark's gospel out of context of the whole any more than I would suggest taking Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes by themselves.
What did you do? Go through and count yourself and find that Mark had the fewest mentions of poverty and wealth issues?
Using your proposed method, why don't we simply read Jesus' sermon on the mount and let that be the criteria?
After all, it IS Jesus' direct teachings, it is shorter than even the Gospel of Mark and a sermon of Jesus would contain all we need to know about Jesus, right?
No. Not ONE sermon. That would only show what He taught in THAT sermon.
Actually, I don't like the challenge myself because I don't think that how often a theme is addressed determines its importance. If drunkeness was most rampant during Christ's life, I would wager that most of His preaching would address that. That the ruling elite of the time (let's call them "Democrats" :D ) were oppressing the poor then greed was the prevailing and blatant practice of the time. It would be logical that He'd address it over other, less common sinful practices.
Thus, to mold one's life around these teachings is to do the opposite of what Dan claims to do, which was to look to the entire Bible and to consider context and the culture of the times.
I think it should be obvious that as far as Christ's teachings to the people of His time is concerned, the larger theme was the poor understanding of God's Law handed down to Moses by which all the people were supposed to live. This misunderstanding was the root of oppression of the elites toward the less fortunate.
Regarding Dan's conservatism, I agree that his understanding of true conservatism was as skewed then as it is now, and as skewed as his understanding of the Bible.
You say this, Dan: "(which included what I considered war crimes in Latin America and support for thugs around the world)."
More accurately would be to say that you simply didn't care for the thugs Reagan supported and chose instead to give YOUR support to the other thugs, which were communist or communist supported. You claim to get your info straight from the victims of Reagan's favored thugs, but don't say how you verified their stories. This is important considering the known practice of the Sandinistas of engaging in thuggish behavior disguised as Contras. It is also important because you have not shown how you determined that those poor oppressed were not just Sandinista sympathizers trash talking the opposition.
This digression points to other questions regarding your ability to comprehend and reason.
It also leads to questions regarding your conversion Biblically when I've shown the shortcomings in your take on Ex 34 and the rest of that bit, as I've done, and Bubba has done, and Neil has done, and Craig has done on various other areas of Scripture. When your argument is reduced to "Well, that's YOUR opinion, I disagree", it seems a rethinking on your part would be in order. But you prefer to cling to your liberal ways no matter what.
No. Not ONE sermon. That would only show what He taught in THAT sermon.
You are exactly right, Marshall. We ought not exclude any teachings of Jesus if we are interested in the teachings of Jesus.
But the question is not over what to exclude (though Bubba looks to focus on only the Gospel of Mark to make his case--which isn't the same as exclusion), it's a question of what is amongst the more important, essential elements of the faith. Giving to the poor isn't one of them. Most non-Christian faiths say as much, so abiding that isn't what makes one Christian.
By saying certain verses aren't to be taken literally IS to exclude teachings, specifically when a teaching may include how God dealt with certain sinners. You then set that aside and look only at what remains in determining your interpretation rather than truly reconciling them as I've pointed out in your Ex 34 angle. Not to put too fine a point on it, you separate Biblical teachings from Jesus' teachings, which, by His words and example, puts OT Scripture in very high regard indeed. Thus, you even exclude some of His teachings by not honoring the OT in the same manner. Again, if the OT was being mistinterpreted as YOU say we're misinterpreting it, Jesus surely would have addressed the errors as He had addressed the eroneous manner the elites were interpreting the Law. He didn't, and our "eroneous" understanding goes back to those times and before.
Dan,
"I fully understand that this is YOUR OPINION, as it was once mine. But, if you lack ANY evidence and I don't find your position to be morally, logically or biblically tenable, then I'm sure you'll agree that I must set aside your hunch for what I believe the Bible is "obviously" teaching."
Then you standard of acceptable evidence is either inconsistent or you have ignored much of what has been written.
"You have not provided the first bit of evidence or anything other than your hunch that the stories are to be taken literal. I don't buy it. Sorry."
Nor have you to support your hunch that it is to be taken figurative. I don't buy it. Sorry. In fact, you haven't even provided figurative interpretations to the passages you don't like.
"If I told you something and provided no - ZERO - evidence for it but assured you I was correct, because I "obviously" was correct and besides, lots of people agree with me, I would hope it would not convince you to change your position. Making one's case requires offering SOMETHING for someone to consider other than "I said so.""
If you would replace the word "if" with the word since, I'd support you totally on this one.
Dan,
Knowing that this is probably a waste of time. Boyd and Rhodes deal at length with this whole concept of epic storytelling etc in their books. I am not going to copy vast sections here, man up and actually read.
I'll cut you a break and add links.
http://www.gregboyd.org/books/lord-or-legend-2/
http://www.gregboyd.org/books/the-jesus-legend/
The first is a oriented to more of a popular audience, while the latter is the longer extensively footnoted scholarly version.
"Making one's case requires offering SOMETHING for someone to consider other than "I said so.""
Indeed, and we do this regularly, Dan. You simply return volley with accusations that we rely on hunches. We look at the text and go by the ACTUAL meanings of the words found therein. YOU claim they should not be taken literally but offer next to nothing (giving you the benefit of the doubt) to support alternatives (rarely offering alternatives at all, but merely saying you don't take them literally). Those rare times when you seek to explain yourself, as with EX 34, you're found lacking in understanding. I don't know that adopting a different process would be helpful for you, since you poorly interpret within the process you use.
Dan:
I asked specifically about Mark, not because I carefully combed its contents, but because we're starting to study the book in our Sunday morning class, and I noticed that, thematically, Mark isn't primarily about Christ's teachings to us, but about what He does for us -- that He cam to serve and give His life as a ransom for many.
It occurred to me just how ridiculously out of whack your priorities are, when one of the four Evangelists largely omits those teachings you find oh-so-important.
My point stands, that if Christ's priority REALLY, ACTUALLY was His teachings about poverty, then it's extremely unlikely that those teachings would have been missed by Mark, who was probably writing the first Gospel.
You write,
"This is why one strong orthodox criteria for interpreting scripture is to interpret the individual passage through the whole and through Jesus' specific teachings. I would not advocate taking Mark's gospel out of context of the whole any more than I would suggest taking Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes by themselves."
Your chutzpah is astonishing, considering how frequently you take individual passages out of their immediate context -- including Psalm 106, Romans 12, and I Peter 2.
It's even more astonishing considering how, here, YOU WANT TO RIP CHRIST'S TEACHINGS OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT -- specifically, the Gospels in which they were written and even in the Bible as a whole.
Hence, your effort to focus on what Jesus taught, to the exclusion of what He did, and to the exclusion of the emphasis the Evangelists put on Easter week, spending nearly half their texts on seven days in Christ's life, out of some ten thousand days total.
And, hence, your effort to focus on what Jesus taught and not Jewish Scripture -- even though His teachings include affirming Scripture's authority -- and not the Apostles' teaching -- even though Christ chose them by hand.
Matthew doesn't claim that the sermon he records is all that is important about what Christ did or taught -- which is why his Gospel isn't just those three chapters. Instead, the same book that has three chapters for the Sermon on the Mount has EIGHT CHAPTERS on Easter week.
But what Mark presents in his entire book is the Gospel, the good news.
Indeed, it's not enough for a mature Christian to know this one book, or even all four Gospels, or even just the New Testament.
But ANY SINGLE GOSPEL presumably covers the basics -- enough for a person to understand what's important to Christianity and respond in repentance and faith.
Remember your original question:
"If it turned out that Jesus spent more time talking about the things I tend to talk about and less time talking about his death and resurrection (and which I DO believe in, but spend less time talking about), would you be willing to allow that perhaps I've got my priorities balanced?"
I explained earlier why my answer would be no, but if Christ's supposed priorities aren't clear from ANY SINGLE GOSPEL, then you're off your rocker.
Is the central importance of Christ's death and resurrection obvious in Matthew? Or Mark? Or Luke? Or John?
Yes, I think it's absolutely the case, and I'd be willing to argue that point from any of the four books.
If the central importance of poverty teachings is ALMOST COMPLETELY ABSENT from at least one Gospel -- possibly two, since the only ones you mention are Matthew and Luke -- well, what does that tell you?
Nothing, I'm sure, not because there's nothing to learn, but because you're not (or no longer) capable of being taught.
It tells me that you all appear more concerned with supporting your personal agendas than Jesus' teachings.
Good luck with that, fellas.
Y'all have a blessed Christmas season.
Finding insight in the actual content of Mark's gospel is proof of an agenda? And you want people to believe that you take the Bible seriously?
Jesus Christ affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke.
Jesus Christ taught that God created us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
Most importantly, Jesus Christ taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
When your beliefs so thoroughly contradict so much of what Christ Himself taught, you prove that your posture of an overriding concern for His teachings is an utter fraud.
And with no reasonable response, are you now taking your ball and going home?
It's certainly easier than dealing with the substance of our arguments, but it's not honorable, and it's proof positive that you really aren't open to correction.
Thanks for proving my point, Dan.
And what personal agenda would that be other than the most accurate possible understanding of the very teachings you claim to follow? What new accusation is this? Or are you going to rehash an old one, such as we're forcing something down anyone's throat or acting as God or some other such nonsense? Explain what you think our agendas are (or is) and/or how our interpretations are faulty, inconsistent, unBiblical, etc. You have not done this thus far, but have "only said so", a tactic of which you've accused us without merit. We, at the very least, have responded clearly to YOUR charges and interpretations. YOU whine about having your words twisted, while at the same time horribly twisting ours (God commands the rape/killing of babies).
Thus, you have once again taken your ball and left. We're always here for ya, dude.
"And what personal agenda would that be"
The personal agenda of setting out deliberately and methodically to prove Dan a heretic.
You did your damnedest, but failed miserably.
I believe I stated what our agenda would be, Marty. Are you now looking to slander, a charge Dan would find most heinous in a discussion such as this? Dan believes God would bless homosex unions. That's a very heretical statement to make. It wouldn't be if he had any real Scriptural support for it. His arguments are specious at best as they attempt to make incredible leaps of logic regarding marriage and love and unfounded beliefs about just what behavior is taught as sinful in Scripture.
His refusal to speak clearly, directly and specifically about such issues as Christ's death as real and necessary for our salvation also leaves one to wonder whether his beliefs are Biblically based or merely loosely similar to that which is known as Christianity.
So as his pronouncements and arguments fail to show any connection to traditional, long held beliefs based not on cultural influences by on Scriptural influences, to pretend our "agenda" is anything other than well meaning and honorable is, well, dishonorable and mean-spirited. You lack support for your accusation.
Dan believes God would bless homosex unions. That's a very heretical statement to make.
You keep using that word. I don't think you know the meaning.
As to complaining about me "taking my ball and leaving," do you really find it astounding that after 600+ posts in a conversation that is just an extension of OTHER conversations, wherein you STILL misrepresent my positions and make false charges (disagreeing with Marshall on an action's sin nature - or not - is heresy? Really??) with no support, and you all do this with no grace or humor, you find it odd that I would choose to leave?
What would possibly entice me to stay? To correct your bad understandings and slander AGAIN, only to have you slander and misrepresent that?
No thanks.
Come, come Dan. You're being totally dishonest. If you were more straightforward in your responses to our queries, likely this discussion would have ended years ago. Indeed, you often don't even answer the question that was asked, but instead answer an altered question, the answer for which doesn't satisfy the original. You continue to make claims to which we never showed agreement, such as the recent "God killing/raping babies" crap and expect us to carry on as if that's what we're saying, causing extra keystrokes to AGAIN insist you knock it off and stick to the issue raised. There have even been situations where your own words are reproduced to demonstrate that we are indeed understanding what you have said (mostly through the efforts of Bubba who must spend a ton of time tracking them down, or has an incredible memory for when and where they took place. Kudos to him.) So your playing the oppressed here won't do. It hasn't happened. We simply are, and always have been, trying to get to the bottom of how you have come to believe that which is clearly heretical. And yes, I totally understand the meaning of the word.
You waste time with, "That's only your hunch" or "I disagree" or "I see it differently". Really? No kidding! All the while we've supported our position on each issue discussed as well as shown the hole in the reasoning that leads you to your position. The bit on Ex 34 is a good example of that. We understand when you attempt to present an argument for a position. We don't misunderstand at all. Where we have trouble is in believing you expect to present such a lame argument and then stand firmly behind it. So we press on and dissect it hoping you admit to its lameness. Are there liberals looking over your shoulder ready to punish you for your apostacy should you come to a different conclusion based on a stronger argument? Yeah, I know. You don't see our arguments as being stronger. That's a problem as well considering how lame yours are. Would the hallowed Jeff St ban you should you see things differently, all those loving and saintly homosexuals intolerant of sincerly held but contrary belief?
Again, we show Scriptural evidence for our arguments in opposition to you, such as the many and solid that destroy the cockamamie notion of a God-blessed homosexual union and the goofy notion that God only prohibits certain forms of homosexual behavior. But you cling to the totally discredited arguments with only a "I interpret it differently" defense. Again, no freakin' kidding. We've only been begging for you to enlighten us as to our error and you fail to answer our criticisms of your defense. Then comes the blubbering about being rude, unChristian, lacking humor (right!), the insulting posture of piety when you attempt to appeal to Christian brotherhood, followed by bail out.
You need to grow up and get a spine. Real courage would be to take ER's position and just say you think the Bible is wrong about the things of which you don't personally approve rather than pretending you love it so. You think you're taking the hard road believing as you do, but the fact is you won't ever catch the heat like that which awaits those who reject the lies of the homosexual agenda, or even the progressive/liberal agenda for that matter.
Dan, to be absolutely clear, I think the very serious charge of heresy is much more probable in terms of your theology rather than your ethics: more serious than your position that God blesses "gay marriage", is your apparent beliefs A) that Christ did not die for our sins and B) that Christ's physical resurrection isn't absolutely essential.
While heresy is more obvious with such theological matters, I do wonder whether you really believe the term doesn't apply to unorthodox beliefs regarding ethical issues.
You ask, "disagreeing with Marshall on an action's sin nature - or not - is heresy? Really??"
Here, in the same breath in which you accuse us of slander, you continue to misconstrue our position. None of us think that heresy is the result of disagreeing with Marshall or me or anyone else in these discussions: rather, we believe heresy is the act of contradicting Christianity's essential doctrines and the Bible's clear teachings.
Setting that aside, here you seem to think that heresy doesn't have anything to do with "an action's sin nature."
Well, yesterday, you wrote how you came to the conclusion that Reagan conservatives don't or didn't "fit in with biblical Christianity," a charge that doesn't seem all that different from an explicit accusation of heresy.
(If Marty were keeping up and were actually consistent, she would have criticized you for trying to read people out of the faith.)
Okay, what doctrines were those conservatives denying?
Were they (or we) denying the Trinity, three Persons in one Being, all God but each distinct from the other two?
Were they denying the Incarnation, Christ's being fully God and fully man?
Were they denying Christianity's beliefs about the characteristics of God, His perfect justice and His perfect love, His omniscience and omnipotence, His holiness and sovereignty?
Or was the problem THEIR SUPPORT FOR REAGAN'S COLD-WAR FOREIGN POLICY? Policies that you believe resulted in dishonorable alliances and even war crimes?
I'd say it's the foreign policy positions: those were the only things you actually mentioned, you don't actually seem to be a rigorous defender of Christian theology, and in describing yourself you never emphasis your Trinitarian beliefs.
Instead, you consistently describe yourself as leaning "towards the peace-making side of things, towards simple living and towards concern for the poor."
My guess is your problem with Reaganites -- the problem that justifies your nearly explicit charge of heresy, your conclusion that we don't "fit in with biblical Christianity" -- is precisely concerned with "an action's sin nature."
We believe, for instance, that the use of lethal force is not always and necessarily incompatible with the Christian command to love your enemies.
You disagree, and you have no problem reading us out of the faith for it.
It's only when the subject of ethics turns from war to marriage that you think we must agree to disagree.
I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, but I won't find your protest believable until and unless you tell us specifically why Reagan conservatives don't "fit in" with orthodoxy -- and your reasons must have absolutely nothing to do with "an action's sin nature."
If you can't or won't do that, concluding that you're a flagrant hypocrite is really quite reasonable.
No, it's not reasonable at all. Unfortunately, you're apparently just a moron who can't understand the written language and a pharisee who presumes to know that I mean "Boogerman" when I say "apple."
Drop it fellas. You continue to misrepresent and slander and I'm done correcting your false charges. Crucify me if you wish, I'm not the monster you'd like me to be.
Suffice to say that what you have said, Marshall, Bubba, does not represent my real world position.
The BIG clue to point to that is that I HAVE NOT SAID what you THINK I have intended to say.
Beyond that, I'm done correcting your false charges. I am hoping that there is nothing diabolical and malignant in your intent and you're both just not very bright and a bit too proud to admit it. But nonetheless, I wish the best for you.
Seriously, lighten up, Frances. Embrace the grace in this season of our savior's birth.
(and to be clear, that was not a charge of heresy).
Gee whiz.
Yes, if only we could be as precise and accurate in describing your positions, as you are in describing ours.
(Where again did Marshall define heresy as "disagreeing with Marshall"?)
As always, you're more than welcome to clarify what it is you believe: it certainly seems that you believe Reagan conservatives did not (or do not) "fit in with biblical Christianity" (your words) and that your conclusion has everything to do with an action's sin nature rather than, say, the Trinity or the Incarnation.
If you can explain why that is not so, go ahead. If you can't, maybe our conclusions aren't wrong, they're just inconvenient to you.
One thing you could perhaps explain is what you mean by "our savior's birth."
If, contrary to the Bible's clear teachings, we are saved ONLY by God's grace and not by Christ's death, it's hard to grasp quite why Christ should be hailed as our Savior.
But, once again, maybe I'm getting hung up on the details and missing the Greater Truths about what you're writing.
You're extending warm holiday wishes to us, after calling us functionally illiterate, arrogant Pharisees.
You do this in an effort to encourage us to embrace the grace of this holiday season.
And, surely, if we doubt the sincerity and internal consistency of what you write, the problem is ours, not yours.
After all, grace doesn't require you to admit the possibility that your thinking really is muddled and your writing really is incoherent.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
At NRO last week, Andrew McCarthy summarized David Horowitz' explanation of Obama's political maneuvering. He writes that,
"Alinksyites are fifth-column radicals. They have, in substance, the same goals as open revolutionaries: overthrowing the existing free-market republic and replacing it with a radical’s utopia. That’s why Obama could befriend such unrepentant former terrorists as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and take inspiration from Jeremiah Wright, a black-liberation theologist.
"But Alinskyites are more sophisticated, patient, and practical. They bore in, hollowing out the system from within, appropriating the appearance and argot of mainstream society. Their single, animating ambition is to overthrow the capitalist social order, which they claim to see as racist, corrupt, exploitative, imperialist, etc.
"Apart from that goal, everything else — from the public option to Afghanistan — is negotiable: They reserve the right to take any position on any matter, to say anything at any time, based on the ebb and flow of popular opinion. That keeps them politically viable while they radically transform society. Transform it into what, they haven’t worked out in great detail — except that it will be perfect, communal, equal, and just."
I think there's an application of this analysis to our long conversations with Dan.
What is true about Alinskyites especially in the realm of political institutions -- and really all institutions, as the subversive radicals are totalitarian in their political vision -- is also true about Dan and biblical Christianity.
While sharing the same radical vision of those who wish to tear down Christianity and replace it with a radical secular religion, Dan has no problem attempting (poorly) to maintain the appearance of a dedicated Christian, not to tear down the institution of God's church, but to transform it into something that is far more politically useful. What has always been a religion that proclaims Christ's saving death and bodily resurrection, that holds to the authority and divine authorship of Scripture, and that affirms the traditional family, Dan wants to see transformed into a useful tool of the political radicalism he supports in the name of "simple living" and "social justice."
In advancing this goal, Dan will say pretty much anything, to hell with whether the passages he cites are used in context, or whether his current claims are completely contradicted by his earlier, well-documented comments.
When he's caught in what can only be called a lie, Dan cannot and will not do the Christian thing and own up to it: he attacks his critics in order to discredit their criticism.
He is not an honorable man, because honor has nothing to do with him. It's too heavy a burden for a such a treacherous individual.
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus 2 that the whole world should be enrolled.
This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.
And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock.
The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.
The angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.
And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger."
And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:
"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."
...When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
...When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.
Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more."
...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the desert.
He went throughout the whole region of the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one crying out in the desert: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.
Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill shall be made low. The winding roads shall be made straight, and the rough ways made smooth, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'"
He said to the crowds who came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruits as evidence of your repentance!"
...Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news of him spread 6 throughout the whole region.
He taught in their synagogues and was praised by all.
He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 9 because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."
Merry Christmas!
And yet, other than Barabbas, not one prisoner was set free because of Jesus Christ's ministry: not even John the Baptist was liberated, except that his head was liberated from the rest of his body.
Some blind men were given sight, but -- just as prisons still exist -- blindness is not a problem that has been eradicated from the earth.
If Christ's liberation was meant to be taken as physical, then it must be seen as a failure, because He didn't actually do anything, Dan.
Rejecting a literal interpretation of Jesus' direct words, Bubba?! Why, then the only possible conclusion one can reach is that you must not respect the Bible, take it seriously or in no way love it, right?
Naw, just funnin' ya. I know you take it seriously and I'm sure you love Jesus' teachings, in your own way. Just not literally, in this case.
See? We CAN be at peace with one another. If we in the house of God can't get along, then what hope is there for the world?
"She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." - the angel to Joseph, about Mary, Mt 1:21
"Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" - John the Baptist, about Jesus, Jn 1:29
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." - Jesus Christ, about His own death, Mt 26:28
""Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." - Jesus Christ to His disciples, Lk 24:46-47
Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior has saved me from my sins. To deny His saving us from our sins, is to deny His being the Savior.
It's a good thing no one here denies such a thing, Brother.
"See? We CAN be at peace with one another. If we in the house of God can't get along, then what hope is there for the world?" - Dan Trabue, December 8th
"I went in to the 1980s as a Reagan conservative and left the 1980s with little use for political conservatives, who did not fit in with biblical Christianity, as far as I was concerned." - Dan Trabue, December 7th
Dan, I am under no moral obligation to treat the house of God as an infinitely malleable institution. Paul is clear in cursing those who preach a different gospel, and even John -- who taught us to test every spirit -- denounced as "anti-Christ" those who denied that Christ came in the flesh.
Christ Himself taught that not everyone who preaches in His name knows Him. And in Matthew 18, Christ gave pretty clear instructions on how to deal with a brother who persists in sin, and "getting along" is ultimately not the overriding concern.
Dan, I cannot in good conscience extend to you the hand of Christian fellowship, because I do not believe that you are a faithful brother.
Your apparent denial of the central tenet that Christ died for our sins is a deal-breaker -- to say nothing of your unwillingness to be clear about this and your other often radical beliefs.
I cannot be at peace with someone who so forcefully opposes so much of what is essential to Christ's church and what is clear in God's word -- and who nevertheless treacherously pretends to be a faithful brother in Christ.
As long as I believe that you are at war with Christ's church and God's word, I will never be at peace with you. I could not be at peace with God if I were.
Nonetheless, you are my brother. Choose not to be at peace with me if it is your wish. I'd suggest you'd find more peace in letting go of that chip on your shoulder and anger that appears to be in your heart.
Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. "Make level paths for your feet," so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.
Make every effort to live in peace with all people and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. ~Hebrews 12
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.
...For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food...
So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ~Romans 14
"Well, yesterday, you wrote how you came to the conclusion that Reagan conservatives don't or didn't "fit in with biblical Christianity," a charge that doesn't seem all that different from an explicit accusation of heresy.
(If Marty were keeping up and were actually consistent, she would have criticized you for trying to read people out of the faith.)"
Marty was keeping up, but I sure didn't see his statement the way you did Bubba or I would have criticized him.
Here is what Dan said:
"In fact, I think I would say that perhaps nothing drove me further away from political conservatism than the Reagan years. I went in to the 1980s as a Reagan conservative and left the 1980s with little use for political conservatives, who did not fit in with biblical Christianity, as far as I was concerned."
He is talking about their politics, not their personal faith. You do realize there is a difference, right?
Dan:
In response to my statement -- that to deny Christ's saving us from our sins, is to deny His being the Savior -- you write:
"It's a good thing no one here denies such a thing, Brother."
Since you think I'm a functionally illiterate Pharisee, let's make this absolutely clear:
Yes or no, do you believe that Jesus Christ saves us from our sins?
If yes, how? How precisely does Jesus save us from our sins?
I believe that the Bible and Christ's own teachings are clear, that He saved us from our sins through His death.
You've written that we're saved only by God's grace, which implies that Jesus Christ didn't actually have to come in the first place in order for us to be saved. In this thread, you've written that we would have been saved if Christ had died of old age.
So, how does Christ save us?
Bubba...
Since you think I'm a functionally illiterate Pharisee, let's make this absolutely clear:
Yes or no, do you believe that Jesus Christ saves us from our sins?
If yes, how? How precisely does Jesus save us from our sins?
Again, WHY? I've answered and answered that I believe we are sinners saved by God's Grace. That specifically HOW we are saved is specifically by repenting of our sins and accepting the grace God offers and by making Jesus' "Lord of our lives," ie, following in the steps and teachings of Jesus.
I have answered these questions. Why would I just keep repeating these answers?
Anyone who has read what I have written would know that this is my answer to such questions.
Christ saves us by God's grace - since Christ is one and the same as God, we are saved by Christ's grace. Christ's grace that is made evident in his coming to live amongst us, his life amongst us, his teachings to us, his death for us and his resurrection by God's power. We are saved (and are being saved) by God's grace through faith in Jesus. As the Bible says.
Did Jesus live a sacrificial life and die a sacrificial death, pouring out his life for us? Yes, absolutely. Was it a literal payment for a sin debt (ie, "here God, is my blood, I hereby purchase Dan's life..."), no I don't think taking such a Truth literally is the best way to understand that.
If it helps you to think of it that way, by all means, do. Regardless if this "Purchase/ransom" language is literal or metaphorical, we ARE saved by God's grace.
That remains my answer. Why would I answer it again?
Marty:
"He is talking about their politics, not their personal faith. You do realize there is a difference, right?"
That difference disappears when one says that one's politics don't fit with biblical Christianity: that particular charge is very close to an explicit charge of heresy.
Dan, so far as I know, you have never retracted this comment from last year:
"I DON'T think that we ought to spiritualize Jesus' teachings ('well, when he said "Good news to the poor," he didn't mean LITERALLY for the poor, but something more symbolic...') - that to me is anti-Christ, to deny his words and we ought be careful about that sort of thing."
You have no problem repeatedly invoking the spectre of idolatry to attack the doctrine of inerrancy, and just today you've had no problem calling me a functionally-illiterate and arrogant Pharisee.
Tell me again how the Bible requires me to live at peace with you, while you behave like that.
Your idea of peace is like the Dems' idea of bipartisanship: for the sake of peace, you think we should compromise our beliefs, while you don't; you think we should unilaterally disarm, while you won't.
While you undermine the essential doctrines of Christianity and the clear teachings of the Bible, and while you smear those who object, you think peace is attainable and is incumbent on us to let you get away with your despicable behavior.
No dice.
"That difference disappears when one says that one's politics don't fit with biblical Christianity"
How so?
I have received several e-mails from political conservatives who are christians. These e-mails were regarding immigration and to me they were pretty vicious and certainly contrary to how the scriptures tell us to treat "aliens" among us. I wish I had kept the e-mails so I could give you a concrete example.
Nevertheless, even though I didn't feel the content of the e-mails, which the senders obviously agreed with, wasn't in line with what the Bible teaches, I still consider the people who sent them to me friends and my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Seems obvious to me, Marty.
Hey, I'm going to do something really radical and comment on the actual topic of this post.
I'm just not sure that P-BO understands how our government actually works. In his speech today he blamed everything bad in the economy on the past eight years (If he was being honest that would be 8 years 11 months). He seems unaware that many of the things that he claims got us here were passed while he was in the senate. For those who are keeping score at home that means he bears a degree of responsibility for the things he blames. He also talked about the increasing deficit, while apparently choosing to ignore the fact that he has increased the deficit more than the total increase of the Bush years. Finally his solution to the problem caused by (in his view) tax cuts overspending, is to, wait for it....., cut taxes and spend more money.
If it wasn't so serious I'd think it was a SNL sketch.
I realize that I may stand alone here, but according to the definitions of heresy that I've seen, Dan doesn't qualify.
"Finally his solution to the problem caused by (in his view) tax cuts overspending, is to, wait for it....., cut taxes and spend more money.
If it wasn't so serious I'd think it was a SNL sketch."
Yeah. He is sounding more and more like Bush everyday.
I certainly thinks it's reasonable, Craig, to conclude that Dan is still within small-o orthdoxy. I just don't think that it's some high crime to conclude otherwise.
On that subject, Marty, if it's no sin to point out when one thinks another's political beliefs veer from Christianity, it's also no sin to do the same regarding another's religious beliefs -- y'know, like pointing out that, definitionally, a person who rejects at least parts of the Bible's description of God can be accurately said not to worship the God of the Bible.
Dan, your answers continue to be very problematic. You obfuscate, and I believe you make every effort to paint your beliefs in the most innocuous light, even if doing so is not as precise, accurate, and forthright as it should be.
(It's like when you call Obama a capitalist, on the grounds that capitalism means only the belief in the private ownership of property. You can defend tricks like this by being selective about which dictionary matters, but even you don't believe what you write, as you have -- before and since -- approvingly quoted Mark Twain's attack on capitalists as oppressors. Your approach isn't completely indefensible, but it isn't remotely straight-forward: you use language to obscure rather than clarify.)
You continue to focus on the figurative language used to describe the consequences of Christ's death -- whether there was "a literal payment for a sin debt (ie, 'here God, is my blood, I hereby purchase Dan's life...')" -- which obscures the fact that you dismiss the literal claim that Christ's death caused our forgiveness.
You don't believe Christ's death caused any such thing, and yet you refer to it as a sacrificial death: a sacrifice for WHAT, exactly, you don't say.
And you make a strained explanation for why Christ is our Savior, but it doesn't fit with what the Bible clearly teaches and what Christians believe.
"Christ saves us by God's grace - since Christ is one and the same as God, we are saved by Christ's grace."
That's clever: you think we're saved only by God's grace, which makes God our Savior; Christ is God, so Christ is our Savior as well.
But that's not what orthodox Christians mean by calling Christ "Savior." You can determine this by noticing that we don't refer to the Holy Spirit as the Savior.
It's not just that the Godhead is our Savior, and Christ is our Savior because of His membership in the Godhead.
It's that Christ specifically is our Savior through His actions, most specifically His death and resurrection.
[continued]
[continued]
It's not just that the cross and empty tomb emanate from God's saving grace, as if they were exhaust or by-products of salvation -- "Christ's grace that is made evident in his coming to live amongst us, his life amongst us, his teachings to us, his death for us and his resurrection by God's power" -- it's that Christ's death is the DIRECT CAUSE FOR OUR SALVATION. We are saved because Christ died for our sins; Christ was sent (and He chose to come) and died because of God's grace.
This is the clear teaching of Scripture. Again, Jesus Christ Himself taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, and He taught that He came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mt 26:28, Mk 10:45).
Paul taught that we are justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood; and in what is probably a very early creed, Paul taught that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (Rom 3:24-25, I Cor 15:3).
He wasn't the only Apostle to emphasize the saving power of Christ's death. Peter wrote that Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross, and John wrote that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin (I Pet 2:24, I Jn 1:7).
You mentioned C.S. Lewis yesterday, and he's crystal clear on this matter, too. In Mere Christianity, in his chapter on the Atonement ("The Perfect Penitent"), he writes that "God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form."
"And now, what was the puropose of it all? What did He come to do? Well, to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about something different -- about His death and His coming to life again. It is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies here. They think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed."
You don't think this, and so when you call Christ Savior, you mean something very different from biblical Christianity.
The comparison to Mormonism is spot on, you use the same words to mean very different things, in an effort to hide just how radically different your views really are.
"On that subject, Marty, if it's no sin to point out when one thinks another's political beliefs veer from Christianity, it's also no sin to do the same regarding another's religious beliefs -- "
How can a political belief be heretical Bubba? That has nothing to do with a person's personal faith. Or is that you think it is one and the same?
Bubba,
Heresy seems to be more about variance from a churches doctrine rather than a broader "christian" doctrine.
I realize it's kind of a subtle distinction, but I wouldn't go there.
Craig,
The only church that matters is the Christ's church, that body of people that are His people, that see Him as Lord and Savior and accept Him as such. But in either case, Dan holds beliefs that definitely stray from Christian dogma, doctrine, teachings or any other word one could wish to use. At what point does one stray too far without crossing that line that separates a Christian from everyone else? While I'm more than happy to leave that ultimate decision up to God, I am well within my rights and Christian obligation to point to specific comments and/or beliefs and demand explanations when those comments and/or beliefs are way the hell out of the mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. Dan has thus far failed throughout these 600+ comments, as well as throughout all conversations one every blog where I've seen him post a comment, to provide a reasonable explanation for his departure from that mainstream. He's been more than welcome to provide such, and I remain patient in waiting for him to come through. I just won't hold my breath whilst doing so.
Marty,
"How can a political belief be heretical Bubba? That has nothing to do with a person's personal faith. Or is that you think it is one and the same?"
Considering it was Dan who first suggested that a political position could fail to satisfy Christian sensibilities (within this discussion), it is then fair game to turn the tables. However, when one's political opinion contradicts Biblical teaching, that opinion is heretical against the faith. Also keep in mind that Dan claims his politics is formed by his perception of Biblical teaching. I think the opposite is true despite his protestations, but be that as it may, if he supports something politically that is unChristian, such as homo marriage or abortion, which he does, he is in that sphere of heresy.
Keep in mind also that despite the fact we, as a country, must deal with unConstitutional crap about separation of church and state, we as individuals are not obligated toward that malarkey in our personal lives. You don't hold political beliefs that conflict with your religious beliefs, do you? Please don't say that's so. I'd be even more disappointed than I already am.
"You don't hold political beliefs that conflict with your religious beliefs, do you?"
I'm not even sure I hold any "political" beliefs these days Marshall. I think politics is a pretty messy business, especially when it creeps it's way into the church.
Post a Comment